Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Elie H.

New Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Elie H.'s Achievements

New Member

New Member (1/5)

  1. Thank you for your insight on this topic! very helpful. Yes I think that it is difficult to find a universal fit and it's a matter of preferences otherwise we would have seen a supermajority in the study MJ performed , Interesting though I have met some pretty advanced and exceptional violinists who were literally "magicians", they could perform so well on literally any generally properly set up instrument without having any playability issue.
  2. I believe that what works for classical violin players should work for electric players , since most of them are classically trained. Maybe there's a distinction with fiddlers which prefer less scoop in general from what I understood. Thank you for your dimensions. very insightful. It is true that different players have different preferences, but I thought that maybe there's some scoop dimensions that would provide an optimal fingerboard for most players, leaving the customized solution for specific cases.
  3. Thank you for your detailed explanation Davide, Let me add some information I didn't mention before since it didn't seems really important. The fingerboard will be going on an electric violin made out of resin and out of a single piece, but for some technical reasons (aesthetic as well) It will be difficult to plane this fingerboard after it's manufactured without damaging it, at least I'm nearly sure no luthier would agree to touch this thing. Initially I did not put any scoop in the fingerboard saying that the luthier will add it later, but now it seems difficult to follow this path. this experiment is also rather costly from other ends as well so experimenting with lots of different dimensions might prove difficult initially. that's why I resorted to all the reading and opinions I could find on this topic, hopefully trying to nail it from the first (or second) try. Here are some options from G-center-E (in mm) with an applied curvature map for visual help (since without that it's a bit hard to discern the difference), sorry for the huge size but I though it might be helpful for many to visualize how some of the smaller changes really impact the whole shape of the board. Dark blue is very convex, Light blue is less convex, and Green is flat. 0.5/0.65/0.5 (same radius 41.5 mm all across the board) 0.5/0.55/0.25 (same radius 41.5 mm all across the board) 0.75/0.5/0.25 (middle radius 38mm like the 3rd option in the survey mentioned earlier ) 0.5/0.45/0.5 (R38 in the middle) 0.75/0.65/0.25 (same radius all across like option 1 in the survey) 0/0/0 (same radius no scoop) 0.75/0.5/0.25 (R42/R33/R30) 0.6/0.4/0.2 (R42/R40/R44) 1/0.85/0.5(Same Radius) 0.7/0.7/0.5(Same Radius) 0.5/0.5/0.25 (Same Radius) 0.5/0.5/0.5 (R39 in the middle)
  4. Is the asymmetry needed though? can the scoop be equal on E and G? and how much scoop is too much scoop?
  5. This makes sense, you're absolutely correct. But I wonder if this means there's no right or wrong scoop depth, if it's just user preference? this concept is so subtle I haven't heard about it once from the various musicians I know, and I didn't know about it either. My best guess would be to have some scoop to facilitate playability and reduce potential interference, but not enough scoop to make the player feel that the string is too high. Am I missing something? MJ does say that she is not advocating for any option in particular, but could the changes we are talking about be so subtle? I will model some of the options highlighted in her study and post the curvature heat maps if anyone is interested.
  6. I found that if we assume constant radius across the length-it seems to be the most frequent choice for fingerboards-and account for a symmetric scoop on both sides, the closest geometric shape to the surface we get would be a section of a torus and taking the convex part of the torus. My main (possibly false) intuition would be that this should be a great surface since, as you can see in the curvature map in the picture, the surface have a very consistent concavity. Thank you for sharing MJ's work on this topic, I have been reading her very useful research on the topic and used it as a guidance to experiment with other various parameters. I have seen some values in the study that showed symmetrical scooping, But I have also seen a few answers that said they don't add any scoop which doesn't sound like a great idea. so I thought I would ask over here about the symmetry of the top surface, since her article is rather vague when it comes to this matter (she talks a little bit about side edge scoops being symmetrical but nothing about the top scoops. A symmetrical scoop would help me tremendously down the line for this specific instrument, however it is not essential and if absolutely necessary I may compromise on this symmetry. However to me it doesn't seems like a violin would benefit from asymmetrical scooping as much as a cello or a double bass It's rather surprising that her paper found no supermajority (50%+) for most questions, but the sample size may be small as well.
  7. Hello, I am currently trying to draw an accurate representation of a violin fingerboard in 3 dimensions CAD, with the scooping already taken into consideration with the surface (because of the type of material I am testing my luthier might not be able to re-plane the fingerboard without damaging the instrument). After reading some great discussions around this forum I learned a lot about the theoretical shape and scoop depths etc... But I still have some questions I couldn't figure out on my own. Sorry if my questions are too dumb. 1. Is it possible to have a symmetric scoop depth (E and G) instead of the typical 1:2 or 1:3 ratio and what would the main disadvantages be? I am thinking maybe something like 0.5mm could be enough for typical steel/synthetic strings. 2. Is the scoop depth measured vertically or in the radial direction (normal with the top surface)? 3. are other alternative fingerboard profile popular for violins (egg shaped, parabolic, two tangent circles, other curves) ? I couldn't find any references to this other shapes. maybe there's a good reason for that. I know that this is a little bit subjective and dependent on a lot of other factors, but hopefully I'll be able to draw a surface that satisfy the needs of most players. Thank you very much for your time and sorry for the long post. Attached to this post are a picture of a fingerboard model, as well as a parametric 3d file if you're curious to change different parameters and see how they would look like. fingerboard scoop parametric model.f3d
×
×
  • Create New...